Connect with us

SpaceX

SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch moves to March, risking Falcon Heavy delays

SpaceX completed a static fire of the first Falcon 9 rated for human flight on January 24th. DM-1 is now NET March 2019, clashing with Falcon Heavy's schedule. (SpaceX)

Published

on

The planning date for the launch debut of SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft has been pushed to no earlier than (NET) March 2019 per sources familiar with the matter, potentially creating a direct schedule conflict with the company’s planned operational debut of Falcon Heavy, also NET March 2019.

At the same time as delays to the Commercial Crew Program continue to increase the odds that NASA will lose assured access to the International Space Station (ISS) in 2020, both of SpaceX’s critical missions are entirely dependent upon the support of its Kennedy Space Center-located Launch Complex 39A (Pad 39A), creating a logistical puzzle that will likely delay Falcon Heavy’s second launch until Crew Dragon is safely in orbit.

Advertisement

As of the first week of December 2018, SpaceX was reportedly planning towards a mid-January 2019 launch debut for Crew Dragon. By the end of December, DM-1 was no earlier than the end of January. By the end of January, DM-1 had slipped to from late-February to NET March 2019. Put in slightly different terms, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon launch debut has been more or less indefinitely postponed for the last two months, with planning dates being pushed back at roughly the same pace as the passage of time (i.e. a day’s delay every day).

Admittedly, DM’s apparently indefinite postponement may well be – and probably is – more of an artifact than a sign of any monolithic cause. While the US government’s longest-ever shutdown (35 days) undoubtedly delayed a major proportion of mission-critical work having to do with extensive NASA reviews of SpaceX and Crew Dragon’s launch readiness (known as Readiness Reviews), much of the 60+ day DM-1 delay can probably be attributed to the complexity of the tasks at hand. Being as it is the first time SpaceX has ever attempted a launch directly related to human spaceflight, as well as the first time NASA has been back at the helm (more or less) of US astronaut launch endeavors in more than 7.5 years, significant delays should come as no surprise regardless of how disappointing they may be.

The most consequential aspect of DM-1’s two-month (at least) delay will likely be the myriad ways it feeds into delays of SpaceX’s in-flight abort (IFA) test and first crewed launch (DM-2), and thus’s NASA’s ability to once again independently launch US astronauts. Given that SpaceX’s DM-2 is expected to occur around six months after DM-1 and that the final certification of Crew Dragon for official astronaut launches will likely take another 2-3 months, these delays – barring heroics or program modifications – are pushing NASA dangerously close to the edge of losing assured US access to the International Space Station (ISS).

According to a July 2018 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed the Commercial Crew Program and NASA’s human spaceflight program more generally and concluded that NASA would lose assured access to the ISS in November 2019 if Boeing and SpaceX continued to suffer delays and were unable to reach certification status by then. This comes as a result of NASA’s reliance on Russian Soyuz launches for access both to and from the ISS, launch and return service contracts which have no replacements (aside from SpaceX and Boeing). While GAO noted that NASA could likely delay that loss of assured access until January 2020, even that might be pushing it if SpaceX’s DM-1 delay continues much further.

Advertisement

“[While NASA is working on potential solutions, it] has not yet developed a contingency plan to address the potential gaps that [future delays in Boeing and SpaceX schedules] could have on U.S. access to the ISS after 2019.” – GAO, July 2018

Prior to DM-1’s delay from NET January to NET March 2019, SpaceX was targeting an In-Flight Abort test roughly three months after DM-1 (it will reuse DM-1’s Crew Dragon capsule), DM-2 six months after DM-1 (NET June 2019), and NASA certification and the first operational astronaut launch (PCM-1) as few as two months after DM-2 (August 2019). It’s reasonable to assume that delays to DM-1 will impact subsequent Crew Dragon launches roughly 1:1, as DM-2 and its many associated reviews hinge directly on DM-1, while the same relationship also exists between PCM-1 and DM-2. As a result, Crew Dragon’s two-month delay probably means that SpaceX’s NASA certification will occur no earlier than October 2019, giving NASA no more than 90 days of buffer before the US presence on the ISS drops from around 50% (3 astronauts) to 0%.

Advertisement

Crew Dragon and Falcon Heavy walk into a bar…

The unexpected delays to Crew Dragon’s DM-1 launch debut are likely placing SpaceX in an awkward situation with respect to the operational launch debut of Falcon Heavy, meant to place the terminally delayed Arabsat 6A satellite into orbit no earlier than March 7th, 2019 (at the absolute earliest). DM-1 is also targeting a launch sometime in March, posing a significant problem: both Falcon Heavy and Crew Dragon can only launch from Pad 39A, while the on-site hangar simply doesn’t have the space to support schedule-critical Falcon Heavy prelaunch work (mainly booster integration and a static fire test) and no less critical Crew Dragon launch preparations simultaneously.

 

Much like SpaceX’s inaugural Falcon Heavy rocket spent a month and a half fully integrated and more than two weeks in a static-fire limbo (albeit due to one-of-a-kind circumstances) before its launch debut, SpaceX’s second Falcon Heavy rocket – comprised of three new Block 5 boosters and Heavy-specific hardware upgrades – is likely to take a good deal more time than a normal Falcon 9 for prelaunch processing. Almost all of that Heavy-specific testing depends on the rocket being integrated (i.e. all three boosters attached) for preflight fit and systems checks and a wet dress rehearsal (WDR) and/or static fire ignition test.

It’s entirely possible that SpaceX integration technicians are able to complete the process of swapping out Crew Dragon and Falcon 9, modifying the transport/erector (T/E), completing Falcon Heavy booster integration, and installing Falcon Heavy on the T/E quickly enough to allow for simultaneous DM-1 and Arabsat 6A processing. It’s also possible that an extremely elegant but risky alternative strategy could solve the logistical puzzle – as an example, SpaceX could roll Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 out to Pad 39A a week or more before launch to give Falcon Heavy enough space for full integration, whereby Falcon 9’s necessarily successful launch would clear the T/E and allow it to be rolled back into 39A’s hangar for Falcon Heavy installation.

Advertisement

The most likely (and least risky) end result, however, is an indefinite delay for Falcon Heavy Flight 2, pending the successful launch of Crew Dragon. This is very much an instance where “wait and see” is the only route to solid answers, so wait and see we shall.


Check out Teslarati’s newsletters for prompt updates, on-the-ground perspectives, and unique glimpses of SpaceX’s rocket launch and recovery processes!

Advertisement

Eric Ralph is Teslarati's senior spaceflight reporter and has been covering the industry in some capacity for almost half a decade, largely spurred in 2016 by a trip to Mexico to watch Elon Musk reveal SpaceX's plans for Mars in person. Aside from spreading interest and excitement about spaceflight far and wide, his primary goal is to cover humanity's ongoing efforts to expand beyond Earth to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk responds to SpaceX’s ESG rating and says its rockets won’t go electric

Published

on

(Credit: SpaceX)

It is safe to say SpaceX won’t be going for electric rockets anytime soon.

In a characteristically blunt reply on X, SpaceX frontman Elon Musk stated, “Unfortunately, electric rockets are impossible,” following reports that MSCI had assigned SpaceX its lowest possible ESG rating of CCC.

The assessment, issued just this past week, coinciding closely with SpaceX’s public market debut, placed the company on par with nations like Russia in sustainability scoring and cited significant risks in environmental, social, and governance areas.

MSCI flagged SpaceX’s exposure to rocket emissions and other operational impacts, alongside governance concerns such as concentrated control by Musk and limited shareholder protections. Musk’s terse comment directly addressed the environmental pillar, underscoring a core physical constraint that ESG frameworks often overlook when evaluating high-thrust industries.

Advertisement

Electric propulsion systems do exist and are widely used in space. Ion thrusters and Hall-effect thrusters accelerate ionized propellant, typically xenon or krypton, using electric fields, achieving very high specific impulse, often exceeding 3,000 seconds compared to roughly 300–450 seconds for chemical rockets.

This efficiency makes them ideal for satellite station-keeping, orbit raising, and deep-space missions where low thrust over long durations is sufficient. SpaceX’s own Starlink satellites employ electric propulsion for these purposes.

Advertisement

However, launching from Earth’s surface demands something entirely different: enormous thrust delivered rapidly to overcome gravity and atmospheric drag. A typical orbital-class booster must generate thrust far exceeding its weight, often in the millions of Newtons within seconds.

Chemical rockets achieve this through exothermic combustion of dense propellants, producing high-mass-flow, high-velocity exhaust. Electric systems, by contrast, expel very small amounts of mass at extremely high speeds. Generating equivalent thrust would require impractical onboard power levels, massive energy storage or generation systems, and prohibitive added mass, rendering the approach infeasible with current or near-term technology.

Musk has previously expressed a similar sentiment, noting a desire for electric orbital rockets while acknowledging the inescapable requirements of Newton’s third law and energy delivery. The distinction is clear: electric propulsion excels once a vehicle is already in space; it cannot replace the high-thrust chemical phase required to reach orbit from the ground.

The episode illustrates broader critiques of ESG ratings. Proponents argue they incentivize better risk management and long-term sustainability. Detractors, including Musk—who has previously called ESG a “scam”—contend that such metrics can penalize essential activities when no practical alternative exists, potentially discouraging innovation in sectors like space access.

Advertisement

Elon Musk dubs the S&P 500 ESG as “outrageous scam” after Tesla gets booted from index

SpaceX has sought to mitigate launch-related impacts through reusability: Falcon 9 boosters have flown more than 30 times in some cases, dramatically lowering the manufacturing and emissions burden per kilogram delivered to orbit. Starship’s design further emphasizes rapid reusability and methane propellant, which can theoretically be produced via sustainable pathways.

Ultimately, Musk’s remark serves as a reminder that certain engineering realities persist regardless of scoring systems. As humanity expands its presence in space for communications, science, and exploration, balancing genuine environmental progress with technological necessity remains a central challenge.

ESG frameworks may evolve, but the fundamental limits of electric launch propulsion are unlikely to change soon.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

SpaceX is launching a secret spacecraft that could change how things are made in space

SpaceX’s secret disk-shaped Starfall capsule is targeting a market no reentry vehicle has cracked.

Published

on

By

SpaceX is targeting Tuesday, June 23 for the first flight of Starfall, a reentry capsule the company has developed almost entirely in private. The Falcon 9 launch window opens at 6:43 a.m. ET from Space Launch Complex 40 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, with a backup window available the same time on June 24. SpaceX has made no public announcement about the vehicle, only providing launch details. Everything known about it has come through FAA and FCC regulatory filings.

What makes Starfall different starts with its shape. Rather than the traditional cone used by Dragon and every other cargo return capsule in operation, Starfall is a flat disk that measures roughly  10.2 feet (3.1 meters) wide and just 2.5 feet (0.75 meters) tall, and weighing 4,630 pounds (2,100 kg) and capable of returning up to 2,200 pounds (1,000 kilograms) of payload from orbit. The disk geometry maximizes structural efficiency and payload volume relative to mass, and the heat shield mechanically jettisons just before splashdown, allowing recovery teams to retrieve both the capsule and the shield separately from the Pacific Ocean.

The difference with Starfall from existing competitors, such as Varda Space Industries, which has largely built the orbital manufacturing market and returns heavy payloads per flight is that Starfall’s specification is roughly 30 times more per mission, and is designed to be mass-produced and launched on either Falcon 9 or Starship. That combination of volume and launch access is something no standalone startup can replicate, and it puts SpaceX in direct competition with the companies that currently pay it to reach orbit.

SpaceX to launch military missile tracking satellites through new Space Force contract

Advertisement

The intended market is orbital manufacturing: pharmaceuticals, protein crystals, semiconductors, and advanced optical fiber that physically cannot be produced in the presence of gravity. FAA documents describe Starfall’s long-term purpose as building a “self-sustaining commercial in-space manufacturing market” and as a potential successor to the industrial capabilities of the International Space Station, which is set to retire in the late 2020s. Military rapid global cargo delivery is a parallel application under active discussion with the Pentagon.

The reason some industries seek manufacturing in space comes down to gravity. On Earth, gravity causes materials to settle, separate, and deform during production. In microgravity, those constraints disappear.

SpaceX’s already controls launch access, which means it currently functions as the landlord for every competitor in the orbital manufacturing return space. Starfall converts that landlord position into vertical ownership, and it would no longer just carry other companies’ capsules to orbit, but rather operate the capsule, own the return logistics, and capture the service revenue directly. Viewed alongside Starlink, Colossus, and the xAI merger, Starfall fits a consistent pattern: SpaceX identifying infrastructure layers that others depend on and moving to own them outright. Orbital manufacturing return is the next layer on that list.

If Tuesday’s reentry, parachute sequence, and recovery demonstration goes as planned, the second FAA-approved test flight follows. A successful pair of demos would position SpaceX to begin offering Starfall as a commercial service, likely first to pharmaceutical and materials science customers before scaling toward the military and broader manufacturing segments.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

President Trump touts new Air Force One with Musk technology

Published

on

Credit: Air Force

President Donald Trump unveiled an upgraded Boeing 747-8 at Joint Base Andrews on June 19, 2026, describing the Qatar-gifted aircraft as an interim Air Force One equipped with advanced communications systems, including Starlink, Elon Musk’s SpaceX satellite internet service.

The plane, valued at around $400 million and modified for presidential use, serves as a bridge until the delayed VC-25B replacements arrive. Trump highlighted its luxury features and new technology during remarks to service members.

Trump stated:

“We have communication equipment up there that nobody’s ever seen before. It’s the highest level and, uh, including Starlink. My friend Elon is going to be very happy, but, uh, Starlink and we have, uh, four or five different sets of double and triple communications like people haven’t seen.”

Advertisement

He added:

“And it represents what can happen with hard work, innovation, and aggressive timelines because we did this quickly and yet there’s never been communication like is on this plane.”

The aircraft features a redesigned red, white, and blue livery and has been outfitted with Starlink satellite connectivity alongside other secure systems.

Trump praised the plane’s uniqueness, calling it among the world’s most luxurious. The gift from Qatar and subsequent modifications have drawn attention, with the jet positioned as a solution for presidential travel. It is expected to support operations, including potential ceremonial roles such as Fourth of July flyovers.

The event marked the formal introduction of the converted jet, which will help maintain capabilities while the primary Air Force One fleet undergoes modernization. Defense observers note the inclusion of commercial satellite technology like Starlink as part of efforts to ensure resilient communications, crucial to keep the country running as the President is in the sky.

Advertisement

President Trump’s comments underscored appreciation for rapid upgrades and innovation in equipping the aircraft. The plane remains a U.S. government asset and is slated for eventual transfer related to presidential library purposes after its service.

Continue Reading